Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600150
Original file (ND0600150.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT


 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ex-PCSA, USN
Docket No. ND06-00150

Applicant ’s Request
The application for discharge review was received on 20051101 . The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable . The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.
Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20060908 . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant ’s service was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense.

PART I -

APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated
Applicant ’s issues, as stated on the application :

“ Board was waived and was not properly explained wish to upgrade discharge to receive better job & benefits ”
Documentation
Only the service and medical record s were reviewed. The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19920915 - 19921209       COG
         Active: None
Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19921210              Date of Discharge: 19951013

Length of Service (years, months, days):

          Active: 0 2 1 0 0 4
         Inactive: None

 Time Lost During This Period (days):

         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 21

Years Contracted: 4 ( 4 month extension)

Education Level: 1 1 ( GED )                          AFQT: 54 /88

Highest Rate: PCSN

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 3 . 3 ( 3 )                        Behavior: 3 . 3 ( 3 )                  OTA: 3 . 4 0
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Navy Unit Commendation


Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

950713 :  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 123a : Making, drawing or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds (four specs) .
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134 : False of unauthorized pass offenses (three specs) .
Award: Forfeiture of $ 479 per month for 2 month s , restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to E- 2 and process for administrative discharge . No indication of appeal in the record.
950714 :  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) by reason of commission of a serious offense as e videnced by results of Captain’s Mast for events occurring 20, 23, March 22 April; and 31 May 1995.

950714 :  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation .
950720 :  Commanding Officer, USS NASHVILLE (LPD 13) , recommended Applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of commission of a serious offense as ev idenced by results of Captain’s Mast for events occurring 20, 23 March; 22 April; 31 May 1995. Commanding Officer’s comments: “PCSA C_ ( Applicant ) has shown complete disregard for Naval Regulations and standards. I have no doubt that PCSA C_( Applicant ) did commit the offenses investigated at Captain’s Mast for events occurring 20, 23 March; 22 April; 31 May 1995 and that such conduct has no place in the U.S. Navy. I strongly recommend that he be separated from the Naval service with an Other Than Honorable Discharge. ”

950825:  Applicant advised of rights and having elected not to consult with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.
950827:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge with the least favorable characterization of service as other than honorable by reason of commission of a serious offense as evidenced by results of Captain’s Mast for events occurring 20, 23, March; 22 April; and 31 May 1995.

950831 :  BUPERS reviewed administrative separation request and found the wrong notification procedures were used. BUPERS informed Command that it may reprocess member for administrative separation using administrative board procedures. No further action with regard to administrative separation is contemplated.

9509 08 :  Memorandum from Legal Officer, USS NASHVILLE (LPD 13) to BUPERS indicates Applicant was re-notified and documents faxed to BUPERS on 950827.

950908:  Commanding Officer, USS NASHVILLE (LPD 13), recommended Applicant discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments: “PCSA C_(Applicant) has no further potential for Naval service due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by results of Captain’s Mast for events occurring 20, 23 March; 22 April; 31 May 1995. Recommend (Applicant) be separated with said character of service being other than honorable. ”

951004:  BUPERS directed the Applicant 's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a commission of a serious offense.


PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion
The Applicant was discharged on 19951013 by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

An under other than honorable conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by nonjudicial punishment proceedings for four specifications of violations of Article 123a of the UCMJ and three specifications of violations of Article 134 of the UCMJ. The Applicant’s violations of Articles 123a and 134 of the UCMJ are considered serious offenses, punishable by punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his willful failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of his characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

The Applicant implies that his discharge was inequitable because he waived his right to administrative separation board and that his right to an administrative board was not properly explained. The evidence of record shows that the Applicant elected to waive his right to legal counsel and an administrative separation board on 19950825. There is no evidence in the record, and the Applicant provided no documentation to support his claim, that the Applicant was not afforded due process during his administrative separation. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge. Relief denied.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.



Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

B. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 123a, procure anything of value/checks insufficient funds etc., or Article 134, posses or use with intent to defraud or deceive/false or unauthorized pass offenses.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity.



PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil ” .
The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
                   Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                   720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01153

    Original file (ND99-01153.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    950714: Summary Court-Martial for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Wrongfully possessing weapons on board NAS Cecil Field without proper authority, violation of UCMJ Article 92: Violate a lawful order by having a female guest in the barracks after hours, violation of UCMJ Article 109: Without proper authority, willfully damage, by writing on it, one photograph of AA M____ A____. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01160

    Original file (ND02-01160.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-BTFA, USN Docket No. 911015: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the Applicant had committed a serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommend-ed discharge under honorable conditions (general). Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01075

    Original file (ND01-01075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While I was in the military I received two good conducts and two honorable discharge. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 880817 - 920813 HON USN 920814 - 960523 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880815 - 880816 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 960524 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600076

    Original file (ND0600076.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501326

    Original file (ND0501326.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). Therefore, I strongly recommend that SH3 F_ (Applicant) be separated from the Naval Service with an Other Than Honorable Discharge. There is evidence that the command initially contemplated separating the Applicant with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and only after further review did they process the Applicant for an under...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00291

    Original file (ND02-00291.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00291 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020123, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. Despite the applicant’s years of honorable service, awards and high performance and behavior average markings, the Board found that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged for misconduct. Relief is therefore denied.The applicant’s discharge characterization accurately reflects his service to his country.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500279

    Original file (ND0500279.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. 960307: BUPERS directed the Applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. The Commanding Officer stated in his recommendation that, “[a]lthough the offenses for which she appeared at mast are considered to be serious, she has not incurred any additional misconduct, and the primary reason for...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00354

    Original file (ND99-00354.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered: Copy of DD Form 214. Applicant’s letter dated 981130 Copies of Applicant’s service record (previously held by the NDRB) Copy of letter and enclosure to the applicant from GEICO Insurance dated 940614 Copy of GED and associated scores PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 921125 -...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00417

    Original file (ND02-00417.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SA, USN Docket No. ND02-00417 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020221, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. No indication of appeal in the record.911209: Retention Warning from USS DETROIT (AOE 4): Advised of deficiency (A pattern of misconduct as evidenced by two Article 15, UCMJ nonjudicial punishments...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501009

    Original file (ND0501009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    “Propriety or Equity Issue(s): The Administrative Discharge packet includes an error in the materials used by board members who deliberated on the Applicant’s board.Statement: In accordance with 32 CFR § 724, and SECNAVINST 5420.174D, the Veterans of Foreign Wars submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition Time Lost During This Period (days): Unauthorized absence: 2 days Confinement: 25 days Age at...